JUDGMENT : J.K. Mohanty, J. - This revision is directed against the order of the learned Subdivisions Judicial Magistrate, Sonepur dated 23-6-1979 by which he has summoned the Petitioner Gokul Mohan Tripathy as an accused to face trial u/s 294, Indian Penal Code. 2. In order to appreciate the points raised in this case it is necessary to state briefly the facts of the case. Opposite Party No. 1 Satyabhama Panigrahi and Opposite Party No. 2 Benudhar Joshi, father of Opposite Party No. 1 filed a petition of complaint on 2-6-1978 against the Petitioner and his son Gandaram Tripathy alleging that the husband of Opposite Party No. 1 had kept some gold ornaments and currency notes with Gandaram Tripathy. The husband of Opposite Party No. 1 died on 12-7-1978. Few days after his death, Opposite Party No. 1 asked Gadaram to return the ornaments and the money. He agreed to return the same, but actually did not do so. Thereafter several demands were made by Opposite Party No. 1 to Gandaram, but on some plea or other the latter deferred to return the same. Finally on 15-5-1978 Opposite Party No. 1 with her mother and children and an outsider went to the house of Gandaram and demanded to return the ornaments and the money, but Gandaram instead of returning the same completely denied to have kept any ornaments or money and misbehaved with Opposite Party No. 1 and her companions. The Petitioner chased Opposite Party No. 1 and uttered some obscene words and did some obscene acts to the annoyance of Opposite Party No. 1. So the complainant-Opposite Parties filed a complaint petition on 2.6.1978 before the S.D.J.M., Sonepur alleging that the accused persons have committed offences under Sections 406 and 294, Indian Penal Code. On 22-6-1978 the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused Gandaram Tripathy u/s 406, Indian Penal Code only. On 9-11-1978 after examining two witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2, viz, Satyabhama Panigrahi and Nimai Charan Pattanaik respectively, the learned Magistrate framed charge against accused Gandaram u/s 406, Indian Penal Code. On that day an application was filed on behalf of the complainant-Opposite Parties praying to summon Petitioner Gokula Mohan Tripathy to stand trial as an accused as the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 disclosed that the Petitioner had committed offence u/s 294, Indian Penal Code. On that day an application was filed on behalf of the complainant-Opposite Parties praying to summon Petitioner Gokula Mohan Tripathy to stand trial as an accused as the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 disclosed that the Petitioner had committed offence u/s 294, Indian Penal Code. On 23-6-1979 the learned Magistrate after hearing the argument has summoned the Petitioner to stand his trial u/s 294, Indian Penal Code along with other accused person', Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Petitioner has preferred this present revision. 3. Mr. Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, raised the following points. That Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure would not be applicable as in the present case the offence u/s 294, Indian Penal Code cannot be tried together with the offence u/s 406, Indian Penal Code. The offence u/s 406, Indian Penal Code was complete as soon as accused Gandaram refused to return the ornaments and the words used by the Petitioner cannot be said to be arising out of the same transaction. By the impugned order the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence u/s 294, Indian Penal Code. As earlier he had not taken cognizance of the offence u/s 294, Indian Penal Code the complaint petition having been dismissed as against the Petitioner, the Impugned order is without jurisdiction. Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure is a general provision whereas Section 468, Code of Criminal Procedure is a specific provision providing for limitation. The power u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised subject to the period of limItation provided u/s 468, Code of Criminal Procedure. If any, other interpretation is given Section 468, Code of Criminal Procedure would become nugatory as in every case the Magistrate would take recourse to Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure and take cognizance beyond the period of limitation and issue summons. Section 468(3), Code of Criminal Procedure would not be applicable because there IS no allegation against the present Petitioner u/s 406, Indian Penal Code nor there is any allegation against the other accused persons u/s 294 Indian Penal Code. 4. Section 468(3), Code of Criminal Procedure would not be applicable because there IS no allegation against the present Petitioner u/s 406, Indian Penal Code nor there is any allegation against the other accused persons u/s 294 Indian Penal Code. 4. In the present case the offence u/s 406, Indian Penal Code has been committed on 15-5-1978, as disclosed in the complaint petition, cognizance of which has already been taken and on that very day and same time when Gandaram refused to return the ornaments, the present Petitioner caused annoyance to the complainant-opposite party No. 2 by uttering some obscene words and doing some obscene acts. Section 223(d) Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together. As in the present case both the offences under Sections 294 and 406, Indian Penal Code have been committed in the course of the same transaction, there is no bar for trial of these two offences together. As it appears from the order sheet dated 22-6-1978 the learned Magistrate found sufficient ground to proceed against accused Gandaram u/s 406, Indian Penal Code alone and took cognizance against accused Gandaram u/s 406, Indian Penal Code. The complaint petition has not been dismissed as against the present Petitioner as now submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 5. An interesting point of law has been raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the occurrence having taken place on 15-5-1978 and the Petitioner having been summoned on 22-6-1978 i.e. beyond the period of one year, the prosecution for the offence u/s 294, Indian Penal Code was barred u/s 468, Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 468, Code of Criminal Procedure is a new provision which has been incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and puts a bar for taking cognizance after a lapse of the period of limitation. Section 468, Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: 468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation - (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in Sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. Section 468, Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: 468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation - (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in Sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be- (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. (3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment, or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment. The Petitioner has been summoned to stand trial u/s 294, Indian Penal Code and the maximum sentence for this offence is imprisonment for three months. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 468, Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that the cognizance against the Petitioner having been taken after a period of one year, it is barred under the aforesaid provision. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties relied on the provisions of Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure and also Sub-section (3) of Section 468, Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure provides: 319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. - (1) where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained, by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into or trial of the offence which be appears to have committed. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained, by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into or trial of the offence which be appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under Sub-section (1) then (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard; (b) Subject to the provisions of Clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. So u/s 319(1) the Court has jurisdiction to proceed against such person for the offence which be appears to have committed if in course of any enquiry into, or trial of, an offence it appears from the evidence that such person not being the accused has committed any offence for which be could be tried together with the accused, and under Sub-section (2) of Section 319 where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, and under Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section 319 where the Court proceeds against any person under Sub-section (1) then, subject to the provisions of Clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. In this case the Magistrate having found, in the course of trial of Gandaram for an offence u/s 406, Indian Penal Code that the Petitioner has committed an offence u/s 294, Indian Penal Code has proceeded against the Petitioner and has summoned him to face trial u/s 294, Indian Penal Code. Further, reading the provisions of Sub-section 4(b) of Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure it is absolutely clear that by legal fiction the person who has been subsequently summoned for trial shall also be deemed to be accused when the Court took cognizance of the offences. Further Section 468(3), Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the period of limitation in relation to offences which may be trial together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the mast severe punishment. Further Section 468(3), Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the period of limitation in relation to offences which may be trial together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the mast severe punishment. In the present case the offences under Sections 406 and 294, Indian Penal Code as already held can be tried together as both the offences arise out of the same transaction. So the provisions of Section 468(3), Code of Criminal Procedure have application to this case and the period of limitation, in my view, will be three years according to Section 468(2)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure as the maximum sentence for the offence u/s 406, Indian Penal Code is imprisonment for three years and between 15-5-1978 when the offence was committed and 10-6-1976 on which the accused was summoned, the period of three years had not elapsed. Therefore, there is absolutely no doubt that as u/s 319 read with Sections 468, 469 and 470, Code of Criminal Procedure the person or persons against whom evidence of their participation comes before the Court and the Court, on a perusal of the evidence, summons them to face their trial along with the other accused persons, the provisions of Section 468, Code of Criminal Procedure will not be attracted in view of Section 319(4)(b) of the Code and they will also be deemed to be the persons against whom cognizance had been taken at the initial stage when the Court had summoned the other accused persons for trial. Further, in this case in view of Section 468(3), Code of Criminal Procedure as already observed, the period of limitation has not expired. 6. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence has proceeded against the present Petitioner and has issued summons and in my view, there is no illegality or irregularity in summoning the Petitioner to stand his trial. 7. In the result, therefore, the revision has no merit which is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed